3 ms·

I never put a FB Connect button, but some people complain because they are used to logging in with one. It's a pain because it's another platform you have to su

I never put a FB Connect button, but some people complain because they are used to logging in with one. It's a pain because it's another platform you have to support if you're a developer. What happened to the days when you just had to implement a simple website for 1 browser, without having to worry about multiple browsers, supporting iPhone, iPad, Android, and enabling Facebook/Twitter/OpenID logins, and finding friends through facebook/twitter/gmail? New technologies for consumers are great, but for producers who rather create the next Facebook instead of using it, they can be a hassle to support.

tnorthcutt 15y ago
What happened to the days when you just had to implement a simple website for 1 browser, without having to worry about multiple browsers, supporting iPhone, iPad, Android, and enabling Facebook/Twitter/OpenID logins, and finding friends through facebook/twitter/gmail? Do you really yearn for those days? Think about what you can build now vs. what you could build then.
- AznHisoka 15y ago
  I could build the next Mint w/o people saying "How is that different from Mint?". I could build Twitter w/o people saying That's like Twitter! I could build the next Match.com w/o people saying "But everyone's in Match.com!"
  - shinratdr 15y ago
    How is that beneficial for anything other than your ego? Last time I checked, if there was no internet in the year 2012 you could invent that too. I don't really see it existing as a hindrance to your potential creativity though.
    - AznHisoka 15y ago
      Hindrance or not, it adds an extra layer of friction in the quest of getting users, getting PR, getting attention, etc since people have been used to seeing most things already. And it's not about creativity, it's about making something to get rich first.
estel 15y ago
There was never a day when you didn't have to worry about supporting multiple browsers.
- AznHisoka 15y ago
  when IE was 95% market share?
  - djtriptych 15y ago
    This is actually a reasonable answer, having been around at that time. At one point, if it worked on IE it went out the door. Actually I know that "one point". It was when Mozilla completely destroyed their browser platform with the horribly broken Netscape 4. Everybody stopped using it immediately. Back then it was like "does it work on ie" and maybe "should we build an AOL presence?". AOL then = Facebook today. You're welcome, young people.
    - marshray 15y ago
      if it worked on IE it went out the door How many of those companies are still in business, relative to their competitors who chose instead to bet on cross-platform standards in the long term?
      - AznHisoka 15y ago
        They had to worry about IE initially.. then when they made it big, they had the money/time/resources to focus on branching out. Today, to make it big you have to worry about a lot more platforms.. and that's only to get started. Sux!
      - djtriptych 15y ago
        If you were developing back then, you know there was a conscious choice between using REALLY microsoft-specific stuff like .htc modules, and just not worrying if your layout was perfect in Netscape 3. It was easy to not care for a while there. If you're developing now, you know how much time you save just not worrying about layout in dying browsers.

tnorthcutt 15y ago

What happened to the days when you just had to implement a simple website for 1 browser, without having to worry about multiple browsers, supporting iPhone, iPad, Android, and enabling Facebook/Twitter/OpenID logins, and finding friends through facebook/twitter/gmail? Do you really yearn for those days? Think about what you can build now vs. what you could build then.

AznHisoka 15y ago
I could build the next Mint w/o people saying "How is that different from Mint?". I could build Twitter w/o people saying That's like Twitter! I could build the next Match.com w/o people saying "But everyone's in Match.com!"
- shinratdr 15y ago
  How is that beneficial for anything other than your ego? Last time I checked, if there was no internet in the year 2012 you could invent that too. I don't really see it existing as a hindrance to your potential creativity though.
  - AznHisoka 15y ago
    Hindrance or not, it adds an extra layer of friction in the quest of getting users, getting PR, getting attention, etc since people have been used to seeing most things already. And it's not about creativity, it's about making something to get rich first.

estel 15y ago

There was never a day when you didn't have to worry about supporting multiple browsers.

AznHisoka 15y ago
when IE was 95% market share?
- djtriptych 15y ago
  This is actually a reasonable answer, having been around at that time. At one point, if it worked on IE it went out the door. Actually I know that "one point". It was when Mozilla completely destroyed their browser platform with the horribly broken Netscape 4. Everybody stopped using it immediately. Back then it was like "does it work on ie" and maybe "should we build an AOL presence?". AOL then = Facebook today. You're welcome, young people.
  - marshray 15y ago
    if it worked on IE it went out the door How many of those companies are still in business, relative to their competitors who chose instead to bet on cross-platform standards in the long term?
    - AznHisoka 15y ago
      They had to worry about IE initially.. then when they made it big, they had the money/time/resources to focus on branching out. Today, to make it big you have to worry about a lot more platforms.. and that's only to get started. Sux!
    - djtriptych 15y ago
      If you were developing back then, you know there was a conscious choice between using REALLY microsoft-specific stuff like .htc modules, and just not worrying if your layout was perfect in Netscape 3. It was easy to not care for a while there. If you're developing now, you know how much time you save just not worrying about layout in dying browsers.